XSF Editor Team - 2020-05-23

  1. pep.

    Does updating the registrar entries of a XEP mandate a version block

  2. flow

    pep., do you update the registrar entries without a textual change of the XEP?

  3. pep.

    Well depending on the XEP, it might just make sense to only update the registrar..

  4. pep.

    I did update the sole exapmle here though

  5. pep.

    So probably at least requires a patch release

  6. flow

    pep., which change are we discussing?

  7. pep.


  8. flow

    ohh that's a good one

  9. flow

    I first ask myself if data form registry entries also come with <required/>

  10. flow

    so right now, one could argue all the existing fields in the registry submission of xep157 are optional

  11. flow

    and the new field you add is also optional

  12. flow

    so it is a backwards compatible change

  13. flow

    it would clearly require a version block if it was a backwards incompatible change

  14. flow

    but nevertheless it basically adds a new thing (akin to attribute element4) on the protocol layer, so i'd say a version block would be required

  15. flow

    even if it would not be required it would be nice

  16. flow

    plus it would certainly be nice if you also extend the example

  17. flow

    and even add a textual description for that field

  18. flow

    because I ask myself if I could parse the text in that field as uri

  19. flow

    i.e., if this field is required to contain only valid URIs

  20. flow

    hmm the last one is probably unrelated to your concrete change

  21. flow

    oh, there is no trace of <required/> in the xsf registry, so either it is not expected to be included in the registration submission, which I would find strange, or, we there was simply never a required field registered

  22. pep.

    so.. version block? :p

  23. pep.

    What do you mean "extend the example"? Don't I already do that?

  24. flow

    pep., ahh sorry, for some reason I only saw the diff in the registry submission

  25. pep.

    hmm, how do I even make sure it contains valid URIs.. That would be good to have yes

  26. flow

    pep., well you could specify it in text, idally we would extend xep122 for that, but that can be done later on

  27. flow

    uh wait

  28. flow

    xep122 has support for xs:anyURI

  29. pep.

    So how would that work? Can I say that in the PR?

  30. flow

    hehe, that's probalby newland. similar to <required/> I can't find registry entries with xep122 annotations. But that doesn not mean that it should not go in the registry, it probably just means that nobody bothered or did it

  31. flow

    i personally think it belongs in the registry information, but not in the example, as the example shows a data form of type 'result'

  32. flow

    and you have the xep122 annotations usually in data forms of type 'form'

  33. flow

    and you have the xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'

  34. flow

    and xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'